Former Vice President Al Gore labeled a British reporter a “denier” after he pressed the former vice president about scientific claims made in his recently-released global warming film.

“Are you a denier?” Gore asked The Spectator’s Ross Clark after a private screening of “An Inconvenient Sequel.” When Clark tried to finish his question, Gore said: “You are a denier.”

Clark questioned one part of Gore’s film that “cuts from Gore on his melting glacier to a flooded street in Miami Beach, with a voiceover from Gore making a strong connection between the two,” he wrote in an article.

“The implication is that sea-level rise is happening frighteningly quickly — and it is all down to carbon emissions, if not nature’s revenge for all those hanging chads which denied him victory in Florida and therefore the 2000 presidential election,” Clark wrote for The Spectator.

Clark was curious about the claim, so he asked Florida International University sea level expert Shimon Wdowinski about global warming’s impact on sea level rise. Wdowinski said glacial melt did impact sea level rise, but the recent surge in sea levels in Miami had more to do with “short-term variability caused by changes in ocean currents.”

Wdowinski also noted that subsidence is another major factor for flooding in Miami, much of which is built on reclaimed swamps and barrier islands. Clark wrote that “[s]atellite measurements reveal that some streets now lie 16 to 24 cm lower than they did 80 years ago.”

A recent study supports Wdowinski’s point. Sea levels south of Cape Hatteras rose about six times faster than the global average from 2011 to 2015, according to University of Florida researchers.

The study found “two large atmospheric patterns most likely accounted for the hot spot off the Southeast coast: the El Niño cycle and the North Atlantic Oscillation,” The New York Times reported.

Gore wasn’t interested in hearing inconvenient science. “As soon as I mention Professor Wdowinski’s name, he counters: ‘Never heard of him — is he a denier?’” Clark wrote, adding Gore soon accused him of being a “denier.”

Clark was also confronted by “a frosty PR woman” who told him “this is a film junket, to promote the film,” not an event to ask hard questions.

Clark isn’t the first to confront Gore on his scientific claims. Fox News host Chris Wallace asked Gore about failed predictions made in his 2006 film “An Inconvenient Truth.”

Wallace confronted Gore on his claim that “[u]nless we take drastic measures the world would reach a point of no return within 10 years,” there would be a “true planetary crisis” due to global warming.

“We are going to suffer some of these consequences, but we can limit and avoid the most catastrophic if we accelerate the pace of change that’s now beginning,” Gore told Wallace.

Algore!
Monday will be his penultimate day.
The “Reverend” Algore of the high church of Glow-bull Warming
will pronounce!
“When the Eclipse totalizes you will RISE (sea level) and SHINE (hottest year eva!)….
Good Grief, he’s the Jimmy Swaggart of the Church of Climatism……

They were not ‘puzzling’ questions at all, and Gore knows all the answers (and the truth) to them. But Gore is not peddling the truth. He is the the captain of a profitable bandwagon selling snake-oil science, and he is not going to allow pesky little things like the truth to get in his way.

Sheesh. Why not be a proudly honest global warming Heretic if you are honestly a denier of all the global warming bullwash that is being pedaled and is being called science, then claim the title ‘denier’ and wear it proudly. There’s something about denying that you are a denier that strikes me as being more than just a bit of a silly waste of time and effort.

Just a piece of unsolicited advice provided by someone who is proudly a hillbilly redneck country boy of advanced age.

In business, profit driven path plays the real story. This is exactly what Al Gore is doing. You can ask him, what was his assets before and after turning in to a global warmist? Once you get money you can hire PR groups. This is what Al Gore is doing around the world.

“We are going to suffer some of these consequences, but we can limit and avoid the most catastrophic if we accelerate the pace of change that’s now beginning,” Gore told Wallace.

So when is Gore going to start accelerating the pace of change in his carbon footprint? Buying carbon offsets so you can continue to heat the air around you outdoor pool doesn’t count. Do Al Gore supporters believe it is right for rich people like him to buy their way out of all responsibility for their carbon emissions?

You don’t understand carbon credits, do you? They are the modern day, climate religion version of medieval indulgences: “”a way to reduce the amount of punishment one has to undergo for sins” as Wikipedia puts it. You should know by now that rich people don’t have to follow the same rules as poor people.

They never did. It’s just that now we somehow expect things to be “fair”. The rich have always ran ripshod over everyone else, gotten off for offenses others are jailed for, etc. I can’t think of any time in history when that was not true. Why anyone is surprised by this amazes me. That anyone thinks it can ever change also amazes me. Perhaps the most important question in all of this is why anyone listens to pronouncements from rich people. We know they do whatever they want and don’t mean a thing they say.

Yes, but in the book of reality they win. Branding someone a ‘d*nier’ instead of answering a threatening question is alinsky 101. So it backfires on the reporter. Don’t think that this isn’t pre-orchestrated behavior. Al Gore wins here though in the long haul liberalism loses. (and don’t think that gore gives a hoot about anybody but himself)…

I was recently enlightened about the nature of sea level change over the last 70+ years. The startling truth is:

Over decades in most places around the world the sea level has remained the same, or declined slightly. This is consistent with the data showing (minimal) sea level rise because this is offset by a few isolated spots which show a steep rise, namely Indonesia. See: http://buythetruth.wordpress.com/2008/11/15/sea-level-scam/

We’ve heard people from all over the world tell how the beach(es) they used to visit decades ago .. are just the same now as far as sea level! Well, there’s an explanation for these “anecdotes.” It is true what they’re saying.

The latest anecdote was told to Gore himself a few weeks ago:

On CNN: Mayor Eskridge, of Tangier Island, Va asked Gore: “I’m a commercial crabber, and I’ve been working the Chesapeake Bay for 50-plus years. And I have a crab house business out on the water. And the water level is THE SAME as it was when the place was built in 1970. I’m not a scientist but I’m a keen observer, and if sea level rise is occurring, why am I not seeing signs of it?” Gore seemed blindsided by the question [now Gore just immediately calls the questioners “a denier!”].. See video here: http://www.mrctv.org/blog/al-gore-put-his-place-mayor-eroding-va-island

The saddest part is not the fact that Gore is behaving immature and unscientific, but that he is getting away with such behaviour. In a more sane and rational world that kind of behaviour would be totally unacceptable and he would be immediately condemned by world leaders, journalists, and public alike. Even if what he says is true, it would still be wrong to act like that. In a free and civilized world people should be allowed to debate and discuss, even or especially the controversial topics. Only that way strong ideas rise to the top and weak ideas die. Demanding blind obedience and shutting down debate only serves authoritarians like Gore.

Sheri,
Only if a Conservative or Republican says something stupid will there be criticism from the MSM.
It is sad that the MSM have become so complicit with the progressive agenda that they never criticize the left regardless of how irrational the proposal; for example Obama did the worst things in history like giving Iran the green light for Nuclear development as well as some cash in the middle of the night to further the terrorist agenda.
The MSM have become so much in the tank for Democrats, they may be hurting their cause.

Before too long Gore will be making a protective cross by crossing his index fingers and holding them out in front of himself as apparent d*niers begin to multiply. I see a pathetic old age for Al and I feel a little sorry. There he is, buying millions of tickets for his own movie and handing them out in street corners bundled up against the whipping cold and snow.

Paramount proposed a redo of the ending to a SciFi flick where global warming was caused by alien laser ships to get all the Crony capitalists to smog up the statosphere as a coolant. Then the invaders turned off the lasers, so earth would freeze up to facilitate the invasion. Heroes from the CliSci unit would foil the plan by… but Al nixed this idea.

That’s what the Paris-ites and ManBearPig folks need – funny hats ! Funny hats and weird hand gestures, and clearly they’re too busy saving the world to have time to come up with them so mebbe we need to help them along and design them up some stuff. Robes too.. well, Robes for the Gore and the Charles and the Mann, smocks for the acolytes.

Thinking about this I’ve already observed some patterns emerging in acolytes – many of the male acolytes have neckbeards and manbuns and the female of the species seem to have blue hair or heavily matted smelly dreadlocks. but really they need do need smocks and given they’re often not capable of original thought, we may be just the people to develop a series of designs for them.

Let’s begin with the funny hand gestures – any suggestions? This could be fun =D

The queen has long understood her insane sons limited capacities hence the reluctance to hand over the reigns. If Charles ever becomes King it will be the end of the Monarchy. She needs to find a way to hand it to one of her grandsons. It wouldn’t surprise me if she does this if she goes into decline.
Around the world the sucker nations are about to feel the consequences of loony power bills and massive unemployment as companies give up the unequal struggle to compete in western decay and move their operations where they are welcome. And what will happen to the likes of gore then? The photos of Mussolini come to mind, I bloody hope so!

Personally, although I admire our current Queen, the removal of all public funding from these parasites and the return to the state of all their lands can’t come soon enough. Socialists of the highest order suckling from the teat of the taxpayer.

Although I do admire Princess Anne, she still has to go with the rest of them.

Oh dear the levels of misunderstanding on this topic are startling. Few know and even fewer recall the constitutional differences between the roles of Prince of Wales and of King. It is as if there are actually people out there who think that the PoW will continue doing what does when King. The PoW is a member of Parliament and has a right and a duty like all such to be involved in the governance of the nation. The Monarch has no such involvement and ever since the early Georges has remained publicly impartial. Charles will do the same and incidentally as the most experienced PoW ever he will do an excellent job as well.

Oh dear…Apropos HotScot’s comment that the Royals are parasites – perhaps best go and read up on the settlement reached between Parliament and the Monarch in 1760 and the subsequent acts of Parliament dealing with the Crown Estate…

By that original settlement, the Monarch traded Royal lands and perquisites (broadly acquired by the Royal Family over 700 years of war, marriage alliances, exercise of prerogative et etc) to Parliament in exchange for a stipend, the Civil List.

There were other rather more profound constitutional changes which went with this (all of which underpin the very nature of the constitutional monarchy as it exists today), and the settlement is formally reaffirmed on the ascension of each monarch to the throne. But it boils down to a simple concept – the Monarch gives up his /her rights, all lawfully obtained, in exchange for a stipend generated by the Crown Estate.

The Monarchy and Civil List costs UK about 60p per citizen per year. What this doesn’t take into account is almost all that goes to finance HM’s role as Head of State. It also ignores that the Monarchy’s net contribution to Britain (according to the Brand Finance Report of 2015) is 1.155 Bn Sterling a year (that is a return on investment per head of population of 17.77 Sterling).

Even a Scotsman shouldnt complain about that. But feel free to grind, gurn and hate away along with all the other deplorables who’d rather see the ghastly phenomenon of a Pres and Mrs Blair, or Pres and Mr Thatcher…

The problem is that constitutionally her hands are tied. Charles WILL be King when she dies and there is nothing bar him pre-deceasing her that can stop it. Act of Settlement 1701 allied with the Bill of Rights 1689 defines the pre-requisites for succession. No catholic can attain the throne for example. It needs assent by parliament and all commonwealth realms. Legislation amending the act came into effect across the Commonwealth realms on 26 March 2015, and removed the disqualification arising from marriage to a Roman Catholic

@Patrick Powers – where did you get the idea that the POW is a member of parliament? I’m sorry, but that is a load of bollocks. He is not an MP, nor can he ever be. Also he may write to various cabinet members, he has absolutely no power at all. The convention is that the Royal Family never comment on ANY political matter. As king, he has just three things according to Bagehot- “the rights to be consulted, to encourage and to warn”. The Monarch has very few powers in reality.

Lastly, barring Charles’ death before the Queen. William cannot become King. It is not possible to jump over one who has a rightful claim to the throne according to the Act above.

Billk – Charlies has indicated that he will probably be George VII. Also, as there was no Charles III in the British monarchy, I fail to see how he could be Charles IV.

Dave, your graphs are meaningless unless you are just trying to do the same thing as Gore. CO2 in ppm is not supposed to be proportional to sea level. With different scaling you could make them look similar.

First you need to use log(CO2) . Then why do you give one vertical grid box to SL and four to CO2 ? This us just BS pseudo-science like we attack Gore for doing.

I’m sure I’ve said this before but you don’t care and continue to misrepresent that data just like Gore. Disappointing.

No, Greg, the graphs are not meaningless. Here’s the meaning you can glean from them:

1. CO2 level has increased about 30% in the last 3/4 century, and 37% since 1900. And,

2. The sea-level rise has been almost perfectly linear for nearly a century. And,

3. CO2 level has no noticeable effect on sea level.

Therefore:

4. Since the rate of sea-level rise has not increased significantly in response to the last 3/4 century of CO2 emissions, there is no reason to expect that it will do so in response to the next 3/4 century of CO2 emissions. The best prediction for sea level in the future is simply a linear projection of the history of sea-level at the same location in the past.

The fact that, as you noted, CO2 has a logarithmically diminishing impact on temperature, and hence on any secondary factor thought to be influenced by temperature, like sea-level, simply reinforces the 4th point.

I’m sorry you don’t like the graph scalings. They were chosen as follows:

* The number of horizontal grid lines was chosen to be nine, to match NOAA’s sea-level graphs.

* The number of horizontal grind lines for CO2 was chosen to be the same as the number for sea-level, so the two graphs could share the same grid lines.

* The green CO2 scaling was chosen to fit nicely on a graph with nine 20 ppmv increments, leaving room for growth to 440 ppmv (probably about 15 years from now).

* The black sea-level scale (in meters) was chosen to match NOAA’s graphs. (In fact, if you look closely, you’ll notice that for one location I accidentally used NOAA’s graph instead of mine.)

The scaling NOAA chose allows a consistent vertical scale for most locations. I.e., it is broad enough to “work” for most sites.

The way my code draws the vertical axis, there are always nine labeled points. By default, they are 0.15 meters apart, which is what NOAA generally uses. But when that would result in any of the traces not fitting on the graph, the vertical axis increments are increased: to 0.20, 0.25, 0.30, etc., per increment, as necessary, to make everything fit.

All except two of the graphs which I showed this time used 0.15 meters/increment. One of the two exceptions is Harlingen, where 0.20 meters/increment was needed to accommodate the wide month-to-moth variations; if you enable boxcar smoothing it reverts to 0.15 meters/increment. The other is Poti, on the Black Sea, which experiences atypically large sea-level rise (I don’t know why).

0.15 meters per increment was NOAA’s choice for most of their MSL graphs, but I think it was a reasonable one, which is why I used it, too.

It’s a compromise, of course. If you make the default increment much larger than that, so that fewer graphs would require non-standard scaling, to get better consistency between the graphs for the different sites, then for the most typical graphs everything looks almost like a horizontal line. Not good.

OTOH, if you make the increment as small as you possibly can for each graph, so that the traces are scaled to “use” maximum possible vertical range (like I did for CO2), then when you compare the graphs of different sites most of them would look pretty much the same. The graph thumbnail sheets on my site would become quite misleading, because the graphs for the sites with the highest rates of SLR would look just like the graphs for the sites with lowest positive rates of SLR. Only the sites where MSL is falling would look distinctly different — also not good.

Data is data, plot it anyway one may like, it is what it is. The accompanying explanation, if there is one, is most important. Further, an exponential trend cannot be turned to a linear trend via scaling.

Greg
You’ve buried yourself in minutiae and only succeeded in being obtuse.

Vertical stretching of the SL data and giving it “more grid boxes” would only magnify noise. It would not change the straight line fit, which is the point of the comparison.

The point is well made by these graphs – not only the linearity of the SL increase but it’s extent back before 1900, way before CO2 could plausibly be having any effect, and the non response to the substantial CO2 upward inflection, whether linear or log, make the point very sufficiently that there is no causal link between CO2 and SL.

What you have done is inflate arcane questions in methodology and personal taste in making graphs, and in so doing failed to understand – either accidentally or deliberately – an obvious conclusion from these data. Are you trying to position yourself as a Mosh disciple – with a lukewarm position and beating up on amateur skeptics to burnish your credentials. These games detract from the truth, and are not helpful.

I see the attempt to remove Trump as the end of the battle against climate change with all the gains ending and the establishment power base for climate change reasserted totally regardless of any facts in the case.

Yes , strange the way one graph stops where the other begins. They show the average slope for sat. data is BIG numbers but do not even show the long term rate AT ALL : 200mm/130y = 1.54 mm/y maybe that is why.

They have a big fat button to down load the sat. data but no link at all for the tide guage data.

Good question re no updates
Also it would be nice if they let you know what is included in their plots, like SLR isostatic adjustments and including correction for local settlement at many tide gauges.
The current plateau if real may be the reason for lack of updates. Clearly if there was an acceleration it would be all over the MSM, regardless of how minute.

“You’re a denier” is a content free answer.
It is a judgement against the person asking the question and not an answer to the question.
It is interesting that Gore can only judge the people.
It is as if he were his father or one of the other racist Senators opposed to vibil rights dismissing questions about his stand on equal rights with, “are you a ni@@er lover?”

The truly scary thing is that Algore was within 539 votes or so of becoming President of the US in 2000. His scare stories about the Earth having a fever are nothing compared to an alternate history scenario of him as President.

Simple. As vice-president for Clinton for 8 years, he was a virtual shoo-in. Becoming a climate change messiah may very well have been because he was denied lost the presidential election. While it may be interesting to speculate on how things would have turned out for the US, it is pretty clear we would not have had AIT, or return of AIT.

Thank God, some scenarios do not occur. Imagine an Al Gore, who won the presidential election in 2000. Left-wing billionaires such as Soros had long since taken over the world leadership, the UN would be dissolved in favor of a world government with Al Gore as a lifelong president. Utopia or sarcasm? I personally experienced Al Gore years ago during his lecture at EnBW (Energy Baden – Württemberg) Climate – Scare Tour. I still scared today. Not only because of the content of the lecture, which at the time was business as unsual, but also because of its behavior and its destructive charisma.
Actually this was the time when I had my own thoughts about the climate, its change and the consequences. Al Gore gave the final impetus to the fact that I became the opponent of established teaching.

I wish everyone who doesn’t know about the climate debate could read this post to see how corrupt political and immoral the alarmists are. From there, it would motivate many to investigate further & see CAGW for what it is & then loose what little remaining support it has.

From the article: “The study found “two large atmospheric patterns most likely accounted for the hot spot off the Southeast coast: the El Niño cycle and the North Atlantic Oscillation,” The New York Times reported.”

This “hotspot” of higher sea level along the East Coast is caused by “two large atmospheric patterns”, not CAGW, according to the study mentioned in this article. I wonder if Al Gore is familiar with the study? Apparently not, since Al seems to think CAGW is the cause. Someone should tell Al, so he doesn’t continue to embarrass himself.

And let’s not forget to mention the King Tides as a contributing factor to the flooding. No CAGW needed.

Al is a genius, his scam is The Emperor’s New Clothes, rewrit and acted with a modern cast.
Instead of the original litmus test,of can you SEE & FEEL the Fabric, Oh wise and intelligent ones..
Its can you SEE & FEEL the virtue, Oh Intelligent, compassionate concerned ones..
If you can’t well.
First version, “You are obviously an ignorant fool unfit for any position of authority.
Second version,”You are obviously an ignorant fool unfit for any position of authority..Denier…
The only other difference is the total number of idiots living in each time span.
Me thinks we have so many more Fools and Bandits than Hans Christian Anderson ever imagined.

” The oceans with their large thermal and dynamic inertia provide a buffer that delays the response of the surface climate to changes in greenhouse gas concentrations. The oceans will continue to warm over about 500 years. Their waters will expand as they warm, causing sea level rise. Ice sheets are thought to respond over timescales of centuries, though this is challenged by recent data from Greenland and Antarctica, which show evidence of a more rapid, though possibly transient, response. Their full contribution to sea level rise will take centuries to manifest. Studies of climate change abatement policies typically end in the year 2100 and thus do not take into account that most of the sea level rise due to the emission of greenhouse gases in the next 100 years will occur decades and centuries later. Sea level is projected to rise 0.2–0.6 meters by the year 2100, primarily as a result of thermal expansion of the oceans; however, it may eventually reach values up to several meters higher than today when the disintegration of glaciers and ice sheets contributes more strongly to sea level rise. (A sea level rise of 4 meters would submerge much of southern Florida.)”

Even if that alarming sea level rise prospect is true, it doesn’t mean the West should try to mitigate the problem unless the rest of the world is on board with cutting its emissions in sync with us. And on board with reporting on them honestly (if it can even measure them accurately). None of that is happening or going to happen, so we shouldn’t go it alone at all: it would just be an economically self-defeating gesture. As Monckton said, anything that’s affordable is insufficient, and anything that’s sufficient is unaffordable.

If, down the road, the problem looks like it might be dire, the only option will be to try geo-engineering. And to move, belatedly to nuclear (or hopefully to compact fusion, if it’s been proven by then).

Not a surprise really for someone whose only training was as a Doctor of Divinity. You either believe and accept all the church’s sacraments or you’re a heretic. Just be glad this isn’t the 15th century and Malleus Maleficarum is no longer in force.

AL has run out of credibility and this just demonstrates what happens when he is confronted with all the BS prophesies used to make millions on the scary global warming caper .
Gore likes to present this air of just a good guy trying to stop the earths fever that he invented.
Nobody is buying it except for those who need a religious substitute to believe in
or are panning for gold .
What ever happened to Mini – Al the great flood profit of doom ? The off shore cash fraud investigation
taking up a little too much time ?
Now that the obstacle Bannon is gone can we expect to see a White House circle back . Count on it .

Let’s see now who to believe 30,000 scientists or Al Gore a failed politician with no scientific credentials ?

Why the global warming name change ? Caught in a massive exaggeration (earth has a fever ) so time for the rebrand to Climate Change . Everyone knows climate changes and sooner or later the odd hurricane is going to happen so a pretty safe bet to run from the tall tales of climate fever that had run it’s course . But hey scary global warming paid well for a while and divorce isn’t cheap after all .
No Denying one thing Al Gore created a product (hot air ) turned into $millions and not everyone could have pulled that off . OK Enron and a few others but those guys really had a lot of help .

If science were to be as Gore, Brain Cox, and so many others would have it, there would be no true research. And certain truths would never be discovered. A pertinent example, due to the increased awareness of ocean pollution, is coral bleaching.

If Gore, et al, were to be believed, the only cause is global warming. End of story! The topic is CLOSED! But real science has revealed there are at least four other factors that interfere with these marine ecosystems:

Gore acts as if he has some scientific credibility, knowing all along that he is lying by both omission and commission. At some point the reporter should take the same role of “lying actor” too. To the standard “denier” response the “lying actor” reporter could respond that he has a PhD in Physics from “impressive university name” and point out that Gore is spewing nonsense, scientifically speaking… pointing out that the reporter had no such credentials and was lying just points out the equivalence to Gore’s ranting.